Old Hebrew, extra Uniscribe work (Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!))

From: asadek@st-elias.com
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 06:19:37 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Old Hebrew, extra Uniscribe work (Re: Arabic encoding model (alas, static!))"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Richard Wordingham" <richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com>

    > On a related issue (RTL support) - when should we expect Uniscribe
    > or its successor to support Phoenician (due in Unicode 5.0)?
    > Should I expect to have to upgrade from Windows XP? (I appreciate
    > that the simplest solution may well be to encode as Hebrew and
    > style as Phoenician via a font.)

    This would tend to prove that Phoenician, which I was unaware was
    to be encoded, is just an archaic form of Hebrew (some ancient
    Phoenician inscriptions would be hard to separate linguistically from
    Old Hebrew I take it) and that it isn't really worth any implementer
    spending time on this script.

    I don't know if Microsoft, for instance, agreed to the Phoenician
    proposal but I would think they should have opposed it: extra work
    in Uniscribe and possibly other applications, no market (Hebrew
    font substitution is just fine), and only grief to have if it does not
    provide it, since it would be in Unicode and some people are bound
    to complain at the lack of availability (at the very least those that
    proposed Phoenician).

    Oh, well.

    Ashraf Sadek

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 06:20:40 CDT